The Primary Mission and First Priority of the US Army

The commanding officer of the US Army ROTC program in Arizona has required his training battalion to wear their uniform in a manner violating regulations and the dignity of his cadets as part of a training exercise on sexual harassment. (I consider that it is a violation of dignity, even for female cadets who might otherwise wear these shoes of their own free will, to be required to wear sexualized attire with their service uniform.) The command's Facebook page describes this as a voluntary show of support for women by cadets. A little different story comes from the cadets themselves (brief harsh, but entirely deserved, language):

This commanding officer should be relieved and disciplined. Imagine what this does to the very recruitment of fine potential officers that is his chief responsibility. With the current leadership, however, it is as likely that he will be taken to be a good example. In addition to giving lip service (or foot service?) to the Army's new "primary mission," it's sure to be effective in the pursuit of the #2 priority of shrinking the Army.

Any other mission is harmed, if we still have any other missions. I can imagine Putin is distributing propaganda posters of US soldiers marching in drag even now.

49 comments:

raven
said...

If they make the conditions onerous enough, the warfighters and bitter clingers will simply retire, and leave the field open for the PC yesmen. This IMO is what is going on- the military is being turned into an implement for the use of the political class against Americans, by systematically changing the makeup of the people in it. Bill Whittle had a report on this trend recently, about a SF Major who had been tasked with all sorts of PC BS, and retired. A recent commenter on Richard Fernandez blog, out of Walter Reed after a few months stay, reported on how soldiers were being let go for any perceived violation of the PC BS. Scott Peck, the psychologist who wrote the best seller "The Road Less Traveled", also wrote "People of the Lie", sort of a study of evil- IIRC, he was a Catholic-these were people he had run across in his practice. Highly recommended. Anyway, Peck was also an Army Psychiatrist, and he was one of those tasked with figuring out the Mai Lai atrocity- why US troops would do such a thing. His writing introduced me to the concept of sub selection, by simply filtering groups of people through increasingly finer screens- if you sift long enough, you can find people who will anything- depending on the filters used, for good or for evil. We are seeing the same concept,, but in a negative sense-conditions have been imposed that make it hard for anyone of a old school, traditional makeup to remain. The remnants will be far less able to fight our foreign enemies, and far more likely to obey orders to suppress internal protest.

Before I even start on the rest of this, allow me to stipulate that this is just plain dumb. The idea that being a woman means wearing high heels is just plain idiotic. I love heels, but many women never wear them at all.

That said, this is a college ROTC unit, not "the Army". They're not the same. First of all, these are college students, not officers. And the "R" in ROTC stands for Reserve, and if the Army is anything like the Marines, the Reserve are not run the same.

What bothers me more than the PC aspect is just how idiotic it is to ask ANYONE to walk a mile in high heeled shoes. Especially for guys not used to heels, that could result in some nasty injuries, not to mention blisters, etc. For no reason.

Raven:

I view anecdotal cases for some purported transformation of the military with great suspicion. First of all, that gives these folks way too much credit. But more importantly, a collection of anecdotes does not make a strong case for what amounts to a very serious accusation.

People going overboard (especially in recruit or officer training) in all kinds of directions has been a problem for decades. We spent 3 years at Parris Island and saw all kinds of overzealous foolishness, and we saw the same dumb overreactions at the Naval Academy in the 3 1/2 years we were stationed there.

I'm reluctant to attribute to malice or deliberate policy what is far more likely attributable to sheer stupidity ... of which the military, like any other profession, has more than its share :p

Using anecdotal "evidence", one could make a very strong case for the military being taken over by right wing Christian extremists too - there are tons of stories to support such a narrative.

The distinction between the Active Duty Army and the various Reserves (e.g., Ready Reserve, Selected Reserve, Standby Reserve, etc.) is established as a part of Title 10 USC. So they're not like the National Guard, which is operated under an entirely different set of laws most of the time: they're an integral part of the Army, even if there are different chains of commands and standards for duty.

The standards for duty are not necessarily less! Combat Camera is organized as a part of the Reserves (as are most Civil Affairs and PSYOP units), and the guys who were in it were being deployed on a more rigorous schedule than the regulars because the capability was needed in the Iraq war at a higher degree than planned. I knew a couple of ComCam guys who transitioned to the regular Marine Corps so they could have a relaxed pace of deployments vice the Army Reserves (at least in their particular field).

A number of ROTC guys are actual soldiers who are temporarily transferred from Active to Reserve service as part of the Green to Gold Scholarship Program. So these are under oath and enlistment contracts just like any other soldier. Others in ROTC have not completed formal induction, but are under contract for an eight year commitment to either Active or Reserve duty.

Still, just the other day I saw one of the ROTC students at UGA wearing rank as well as the ROTC patches. So you certainly can (and many do) get assigned there as a serving soldier.

All I'm saying is, this commander should be broken as a warning to others. If he is ignored instead, this kind of stupidity will fester. If instead he is held up as a good example, then 'so goes the Army' is a danger.

I will add, I know for a fact AR 670-1 (the Army's uniform regulations) cover not just active duty uniforms, but also Reserve, Service Academy, and ROTC uniform wear. And I can 100% guarentee you, high heels are not authorized in combat uniform. So at a minimum, the unit commander issued an order at odds with Army Regulations. Second, wear of a uniform (yes, even the ROTC uniform) at a political event (and you'd be hard pressed to call this anything but) is expressly forbidden by AR 670-1. Furthermore, I'm pretty much certain that requiring political speech out of your subordinates in support of a cause the commander favors is a gross violation of regulations, and an abuse of rank.

I agree that the Army needs to take a good look at this incident (and I don't have much doubt they will do so, if they know about it).

I like Mike's point about not wearing uniforms to political rallies, though I'm not sure what the Army's definition of a political event is (is it one in which people are advocating for/against a law or a political party? If so, I'm not sure a college rally to raise awareness of sexual assault qualifies). Does this fall under the general Hatch Act prohibitions, or is there some other reg that applies?

I'd have to read the Army regs involved to know the answer.

If this is against the regs (if it's not, I think it certainly *ought* to be!) then certainly, the officer involved should be disciplined according to whatever standard the Army usually uses for this and probably relieved as well. I'm not so sure about "broken" :p

Either way, I suspect the ridicule/loss of reputation alone will constitute an effective punishment, too. But if a regulation was broken, then it should be enforced.

If this is clearly an unlawful order, even cadets need to report that up the chain.

There's a bit of irony here, if you stop to think about it. Service members who are sexually assaulted are told, "It's your duty to report it up the chain - if you're too scared or worried about your career, we can't help you."

The same definitely applies in this case. Has anyone formally complained to the Army?

I made an inquiry about that to a friend, but he doesn't know if an official complaint has been filed or not. However, the story is well-known (apparently the Army has come to take 'WTF Army? Moments' very seriously). He expects the commander to be relieved for cause.

Good! That's an example of the system working as designed. Rules don't prevent people from ever abusing their authority - they just make it easier to punish after the fact.

I saw another article about this today that indicated perhaps this wasn't an isolated incident - that it came from the top of the ROTC food chain.

But it continues to bother me that the way this got out was some social media-y vehicle. If indeed it's such a clear cut breach of Army regs (and I'm willing to stipulate that it's likely to be) then it really should be a no brainer to report it.

We've gotten so used to freedom that we've forgotten it has to be fought for from time to time, and that's never going to be easy.

Two years ago, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, laid down an edict on the Obama administration’s plan to open direct land combat jobs to women: If women cannot meet a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered.

Every time I read that, the stupid burns even more. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/19/marine-corps-weighs-lower-standards-for-women-afte/?page=1#ixzz3XwZQVMlF

The real irony here is that women have passed the enlisted course, but of course no one really covets those jobs for women, and they would not be viewed as "progress towards equality" unless there are female officers as well.

Who do these folks think does 95% of the fighting during wartime? I'm not running down officers (I was married to one for 30 years), but you have to laugh at the snooty elitism on display.

Army Regulations section 3-7 Required or prohibited wearing of the Army uniform, subsection k:k. Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilianemployment.(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, exceptas authorized by the first O–5 in the chain of command.(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army, as determined by the commander.(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.

Now, unless a LTC authorized the soldiers to wear their uniforms in this march, then it clearly falls afoul of 3-7 k (2) which, it should be noted, is a punitive article violation of UCMJ to breach. And even then, it only authorizes the wear of the uniform, it does NOT authorize the commander to materially change AR 670-1, and the order to do so falls afoul of 3-7 e:e. Wearing a combination of civilian and military clothing is prohibited, unless prescribed in this regulation ordirected by the Secretary of the Army.

Now, you are free to look through the regulation to your heart's content for anywhere authorizing the wear of high heels with any Army Combat Uniform, but I can assure you, there is no such authorization. Nor do I believe for a hot second that the commander of this ROTC detachment sought permission from the Secretary of the Army for an exception to that.

As for the "did they report it"? I understand your point, but frankly, I can also understand the unwillingness of cadets who literally know next to nothing of the way Big Army operates to fear that they're destroying their potential careers before they even start by challenging the authority of their commander (who has made it clear he won't tolerate dissent by stating that they will be counselled negatively as being opposed to the Army SHARP (Sexual Harrasment/Assault Response & Prevention) Program. It's far easier for us to judge them and say "but if it's such an obvious breach, then they have nothing to fear". Except that they do. Becuse one, they don't KNOW it's a serious breach. As a Specialist, I was challenged by an O-3 about the fact that I was wearing a pair of cut-off at the knee BDU shorts (which had previously been damaged by paint and were no longer an authorized clothing bag issue item) in civilian attire. As I happened to have been studying for my promotion board at the time, I knew the AR 670-1 inside and out, and promptly quoted the relevant section to him. And within the course of a few sentences, he had gone from righteous indignation to stuttering backpedaling. Because I knew the reg and he did not. Had I not been studying and known the reg (as he did not), I'd likely have gotten in some measure of trouble right up until someone who DID know the reg intervened (which the NCO in charge of the detail had not). So it's actually entirely possible that I could have suffered some non-judicial punishment for what was essentially something completely within the regulations (because if that Captain didn't know, then it's possible that my company commander also did not know, and Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment... Marines and Navy call it Captain's Mast... can be issued at the Company level in the Army).

And two, right now their only connection to the bigger Army is that particular ROTC commander. When I was at a duty station as an active duty soldier, I knew where my Company commander's office was. And if I needed to go over her head, I knew where my Battalion commander's office was. And if I needed to see the JAG, I knew where their office was... all of it was on post. But at a College or University? Where's the JAG office? Where's Army CID? How about the next level in their chain of command? Where is that officer's office located? Is it even in the same state? How exactly are these cadets to know HOW to contact someone to complain? If they were stationed at Ft. Huachuca, then I'd have more sympathy for "why didn't they just report it"? Because there's an entire support structure right there on post. But at a college? It's almost the equivalent to a Navy Captain on ship. While at sea, the Captain IS the Navy. Sure, you can complain when you get back to port, but until then? Forget it.

Two years ago, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, laid down an edict on the Obama administration’s plan to open direct land combat jobs to women: If women cannot meet a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered.

My feet and knees hurt just looking at the photo. I do not wear heels more than 2", and the heels I do wear are broad, not the single-spike type in the shot. I'd like to know how many of the cadets had blisters, twisted ankles, pulled muscles and other problems after that walk.

As for the "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes Awareness" stuff, my rule of thumb is anything with "raising awareness" should be given a wide berth.

Mike, if we weren't talking about officer candidates, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

But standing up for what's right is even more important in an officer. Yes, it's hard to do and a lot of folks don't do it at all. But officers have a better chance of stopping unlawful orders than your average E-1, 2, or 3.

I do hold them to a higher standard - they're going to get paid to toe that line later on. And I expect college students to have enough sense to be able to navigate a web site and figure out how to report something up the chain - the services all have ombudsmen and other vehicles. And aren't cadets supposed to learn uniform regs? Or do they only do that at the service academies?

I know my husband had to be able to recite endless regs when he was going through officer training. Maybe the Army doesn't do that, but it would surprise the heck out of me to find out that was true. Police in training learn that stuff too - it really goes with the territory.

By the by, as I was typing this comment I did a little searching and found the tie-in needed to support Grim's point (official Army sponsorship/involvement):

I didn't see that in the original Facebook item, and I am always going to be skeptical of anything on Facebook, especially when there aren't many facts to support it. The article doesn't say anything about people wearing high heels with their uniforms (or even participating in uniform) but it definitely suggests command approval to march in this type of event (actually, this *very* event) under the Army's aegis.

Also couldn't help noticing in other photos that other non-uniform items were being worn (civilian jackets, etc.).

FWIW, I still think this is a stupid use of people's time and should not be mandatory. One more note (from Facebook, which I don't trust):

Regarding the ASU army ROTC incident - "walk a mile in her shoes" we received this statement from the ROTC Commander :

"I saw a comment posted by someone who made a false statement regarding Arizona State University Army ROTC. I am the Professor of Military Science for that program. We are having a "Walk a mile in her shoe" event tomorrow in support of the Chief of Staff of the Army guidance to support efforts to stand against sexual violence. This event is not mandatory and we are not wearing our uniforms. There is no retribution for someone choosing not to participate.

I would like to know the name of the individual that posted that information. They truly are misinformed and are clearly not representing our program or the Army in the way that a future officer should.">

https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/posts/10153290860363606

I agree - posting anonymized protest notes on social media (imgr, Reddit, Facebook) is NOT expected behavior for an officer :p

If tomorrow's leaders are too scared to do what's right.... yikes. And anything on social media deserves a fair amount of skepticism.

I asked my husband about this last night. He thought the high heels thing was an idiotic stunt, and he was particularly bothered by wearing high heels with a uniform.

He thought that if the unit had encouraged people to walk in their civvies, that would have been fine (pretty much what I think), no one should have been pressured, and a college student ought to have enough gumption and intelligence to resolve problems through the chain of command, not by posting to Reddit, imgr, or Facebook.

An officer candidate who is more concerned about his own career prospects, in peacetime, mind you, than the service shouldn't be an officer. And one whose problem solving skills are so poor that he things childishly posting grievances to social media is a good idea is likewise a poor candidate who needs to be counseled.

It's entirely possible to place primary responsibility for this incident on the ROTC staff (and I do, unreservedly), which still acknowledging that everyone in the organization:

a) has recourse through the chain of command, even if it's haaaaaaaaaaaaaard to report wrongdoing (as in my rape example - we don't buy that excuse there, so why should it excuse a far less serious offense?)

b) has a moral responsibility not to obey unlawful orders that they can't get out of by complaining that they were afraid they might lose their job or get an adverse rating. Such a person has no integrity and has no business leading others.

I hope we're not suggesting that's the kind of officer we want in the Army?

Discipline the commander and staff, if this story proves correct, first and hardest. But don't absolve the candidates of their own, lesser duty. That's a great threat to the military than anything Obama is doing.

I'm beginning to think my friend was overly hopeful. Based on your link to the US Army's website, they see this as a fun, wonderful partnership. Command pressure to participate can be downplayed as something less than an order. That's probably an easier case to make in the Army than the Marines, given USMC traditions taught to recruits about the kinds of expressions commanders can make that are to be received as orders.

Still, I'll bet Raven is right: the defense will be made at the juncture between "Of course there was no pressure," and "I'd just love to meet the guy who said there was."

Mike, if we weren't talking about officer candidates, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

But standing up for what's right is even more important in an officer. Yes, it's hard to do and a lot of folks don't do it at all. But officers have a better chance of stopping unlawful orders than your average E-1, 2, or 3.

I'd point out, that in many cases these ROTC cadets are the exact same age as E-1s, 2s and E-3s. I understand and agree that we should hold officers (even prospective ones) to higher standards than the lower enlisted. But if we're going to hold the cadets to higher standards, then what the bloody hell excuse does the Professor of Military Science have? He didn't know the regs better than the cadets? It's his job to teach them those regs. He didn't know it's disallowed for officers to compel political speech from his subordinates? "Well it's in support of SHARP!" No... it isn't. It was a march held by the college, it was not a military function, and I'll take any wager you wish to give that nowhere in the SHARP program authorization or regulations is any guidance that solders should march in "Take Back the Night" events. And frankly, as Raven pointed out, his claim that "no retribution was threatened for not participating" is made unbelievable by the rapid call for the name of the individual who reported that.

Also couldn't help noticing in other photos that other non-uniform items were being worn (civilian jackets, etc.).

So let's assume for just a moment that everything was done exactly as claimed by that anonymous Facebook post claiming to be the ROTC commander. The instant his cadets showed up wearing civilian clothing with their uniform (and that would include high heels) he should have immediately sent them to change and counselled them for violating AR 670-1. But apparently, that didn't happen. Why? Are we to believe that he didn't order it, and yet gave the cadets a complete pass on violating Army regulations? Regulations, that you point out, they all (especially the individual teaching those regulations to cadets) should be able to quote? I don't buy it for a hot second.

Mike, first of all I happen to agree with you about the leadership having the primary responsibility for making sure the regulations are followed. You don't have to convince me of that - I've already stipulated that several times. So I don't understand why you're asking what responsibility the PMS should have. I already addressed that: primary responsibility.

Secondly, assuming everything's exactly the way it was presented on that (anonymous) Facebook post is a huge assumption. Since when is Facebook a reliable source for anything? Since when are anonymous grips posted on social media credible sources?

I haven't seen a single news article except for the one in the Wash Times that attempted to do any research whatsoever on this story, and even the WashTimes didn't do a great job. Did anyone call the unit or the Army? They just cite Facebook, (ludicrously) Reddit comments (now THERE's a credible source for you!) or Tweets.

If, as you say, we suspend proof or evidence or facts and just believe this story on its face, I've already said the Army should discipline the ROTC officers if Army regs were broken. There's nothing unclear about my position here:

If this is against the regs (if it's not, I think it certainly *ought* to be!) then certainly, the officer involved should be disciplined according to whatever standard the Army usually uses for this and probably relieved as well.

...or here:

[Grim]He expects the commander to be relieved for cause.

[Me]Good! That's an example of the system working as designed.

Again, it's not clear to me from an anonymous social media post that the facts have been established. I've already stipulated that the regs should be enforced, and I haven't suggested that anyone other than the leadership should be disciplined.

I *have* argued (and will continue to argue) that if all this is as clear-cut as you say, the cadets have a responsibility to report it up the chain. Being afraid you won't get your very favorite assignment is no excuse for not doing your duty. Being afraid of an adverse report is no excuse for not doing your duty.

Either this is clear, or it's not. If it's clear, then the duty to report wrongdoing is likewise clear. And pointing out that officers (or officer candidates) shouldn't be airing grievances on social media hardly seems like a controversial position to take.

In fact, the Army has regulations about that, too. I know, because I wrote about that several times years ago, and one of the officers I criticized for doing that came to believe that my position was the correct one and that he should have handled things very differently.

There are going to be a lot of times in any officer's career when he needs to have the moral courage and integrity to stand up for what's right. I don't respect people who place their personal welfare or financial gain over their duty and I never will.

Period. It's a high standard, and that high standard is why people still respect the military. Abandoning it is nothing short of tragic.

Here's a leadership exercise for you: if there is no single officer candidate in a unit of "over 300" to quote the anonymous excerpt in Grim's post, how about someone deciding to actually act all leaderful and reporting it as a group? If most or even a sizeable number of cadets sincerely believe this to be wrong, that shouldn't be too hard.

Now that you mention it, this would have been a great leadership exercise, if it had been planned that way by an Army that was trying to create leaders. In that scenario, sometime right before the march everybody is called in and the ones who refused to do it and protested to the chain of command (if any) are praised. The ones who showed up in red shoes are lectured on the self-discipline and courage they lack.

Well, maybe you asked the right question. Is that the kind of leader the Army still wants? Or is it the Red Shoe Officer they're trying to develop?

Fair enough, but the institutions are supposed to do some teaching to support the development of 'the right thing' in ordinary people. Certainly the military does: that's why it has the institution of Basic Training, which is supposed to convey how the military's particular ideas about discipline and good order are to be maintained to a young person raised in a very different atmosphere.

It's worth asking what precisely the institutions are trying to teach, here as elsewhere. Even late in your career, to return to the "Dempsey Rule" -- what is that intended to do, except to teach "senior leaders" to accept a culture of lowering standards when the standards are too hard? What if they go along with it? The order isn't illegal, however incredibly unwise.

Couldn't agree more, Grim. That's one big problem the military has: they're trying to teach an outmoded way of thinking (accountability, integrity, service to something higher than self interest) to the products of a society that no longer values these concepts.

It's possible to sympathize with people and understand why they didn't do the right thing without condoning not doing the right thing, and without buying into the idea that it's OK to think of your own self interest (career, pay, scholarship) first and your duty last.

And I find it hard to believe that even Army ROTC isn't teaching that ethos already. So it seems fair to ask, "In 300+ cadets, not one reported this up the chain?"

One more note. If this seems like an important point to me (and it is), allow me to say that right now I'm facing - and have faced in the past - very similar situations in my career. So this is real to me.

And I'm not an officer, nor in the military. I'm a private citizen who thinks integrity comes first. Not that I'm perfect (far from it - I disappoint myself by failing to live up to my own standards all the time). That's only human, but I don't accept that it's morally excusable to go along to get along.

If a thing is wrong, it should be opposed. The more wrong it is, the more vigorously it should be opposed. What happens to a civilization when everyone thinks of their own welfare first and no one's willing to speak up when something's obviously wrong?

We talk about fighting all the time. I'm not understanding the notion that cowardly anonymous social media postings qualify, though.

Well, bear in mind that this entire blog constitutes an anonymous posting to 'social media' -- its predecessor, anyway. Whether that's cowardly or not, we've been doing a lot of it for a long time here. :)

I remember my father's stories of problems he encountered during the Vietnam era, when it was a draft military and much more heavy-handed on soldiers who complained (because it had a hold on them, and didn't have to convince anyone to enlist to keep its numbers up). Anonymous reporting was important then, too, only we didn't have social media. People just reported things to their Congressmen instead.

Is this worse? Mostly the people who read WTF Army are Army veterans, and they can bring pressure to bear on the institution to live up to its standards. Congress doesn't necessarily love the thing it criticizes when it criticizes the Army. The Veteran community more or less does. They're trying to hold it to its own (once-)higher standards.

Which is not to say that I disagree that someone should stand up, refuse, and demand satisfaction from the chain of command. Someone ought. I'm just not surprised if few do, since that takes a personal virtue that is unusual (even extraordinary, these days).

I don't think I've seen too many instances of authors posting rants about internal service issues here, though.

If I did see that, my reaction would be the same (as, indeed it would with a civilian ranting about internal work issues instead of trying to solve them in the real world). I never did that with my job at VC - the thought wouldn't have occurred to me as it's so obviously wrong.

I remember my father's stories of problems he encountered during the Vietnam era, when it was a draft military and much more heavy-handed on soldiers who complained (because it had a hold on them, and didn't have to convince anyone to enlist to keep its numbers up). Anonymous reporting was important then, too, only we didn't have social media. People just reported things to their Congressmen instead. Is this worse?

Yes, I think it is. I'm pretty sure a complaint to a Congressman would not have taken quite this form. Hopefully, it would not be anonymous, and hopefully it would contain some specifics. Anonymous online postings generally exhibit more... err... freedom than most communications of yore :p

Mostly the people who read WTF Army are Army veterans, and they can bring pressure to bear on the institution to live up to its standards.

Is an anonymous Facebook posting really a good basis for doing that, though? Here you have second, third, and fourthhand complaints from people who don't know all the facts and aren't actually involved. That doesn't seem terribly wise to me.

Everyone wants to make it "easy" and cost-free to file complaints. There's a moral hazard problem there one could drive a Mack truck through.

Maybe, but the system as it works has soldiers marching through their moral hazards in red high-heels.

I'm not sure I can endorse your hostility (e.g., describing participants as 'cowardly') toward these resistance strategies, given the command environment. I agree that upright refusal and a demand that the chain of command adhere to standards would be the best way. However, I think the soldiers are right to believe that this would be expensive (indeed, probably career-destroying) given the environment from the Secretary of the Army down.

Indeed, from the Commander in Chief down.

The best people will do as you suggest, and hopefully succeed rather than simply being made into examples. The less-good may do less-well, but resisting this command climate is still better than acceding to it. It's better that the Veteran community get up in arms and compel some sense that it will be costly and embarrassing to make soldiers parade in Red Shoes than that it should quietly pass without protest.

So let's not make the perfect the enemy of -- perhaps not quite the good -- the better-than-nothing.

Grim said, "given the command environment. I agree that upright refusal and a demand that the chain of command adhere to standards would be the best way. However, I think the soldiers are right to believe that this would be expensive (indeed, probably career-destroying) given the environment from the Secretary of the Army down.

Indeed, from the Commander in Chief down."

Are we now to the point of discussing whether command is malevolent, or just insane?

It's better that the Veteran community get up in arms and compel some sense that it will be costly and embarrassing to make soldiers parade in Red Shoes than that it should quietly pass without protest.

That's one of Obama's favorite debate tactics: there's the course he wants you to accept, or a course at one end of the extremity scale that he knows is obviously unacceptable.

Left unsaid: the entire spectrum of other options (in this case, the ones built right into the system).

On April 1, about 15 cadets from Temple University participated in a school-sponsored Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event, during which men stumble through a pre-set route while sporting high heels as a way to raise awareness for sexual assault victims. Several cadets walked while wearing Army Combat Uniforms, as did the school's professor of military science, Lt. Col. Greg Nardi, who runs Temple's Red Diamond Brigade.

Whoa! You mean, not "over 300????" How can this be?

...Around that time, another high-heel walk, this one sponsored by the ROTC brigade at Arizona State University, drew attention when a screen shot of a message allegedly from an ASU cadet complaining about his school's event landed on Reddit's Army channel, the Facebook page of U.S Army W.T.F! Moments, and other sites. Photos from the Temple event became associated with the April 20 ASU event, although a photographer covering the ASU walk said no participants there wore heels with their ACUs. Some commenters, believing Temple ROTC had organized the April 1 event or that cadets had been cajoled into participating, called for brigade leadership to be fired.

...The event was not mandatory for Temple cadets, Flach said. He said no command pressure had been applied to convince members to participate; if it was, 105 of the brigade's 120 members ignored it.

Of course that doesn't stop posts like this one, claiming that two women are responsible for forcing men to walk in uniforms and high heels:

Unclear how "civilian attire" translates to cammies with red heels, but let's not let a few inconvenient details interfere with the narrative. Facts. Meh: who needs them, when it's so much easier to accuse people on no evidence?

Sorry Grim, but this is just plain pathetic. Glad the Army's investigating. I wonder how many retractions we'll see if the facts contradict all the rumors flying around? I'm guessing not many.

You are presenting a false choice... favorite debate tactics: there's the course he wants you to accept, or a course at one end of the extremity scale that he knows is obviously unacceptable.

Well, no: these happen to be the two courses clustered at this end of the scale. "Submit quietly" and "protest anonymously" are not distant horns of a dilemma, with "do the right thing" somehow between them.

So it's not a false choice at all. I think "do the right thing" is the best option, and said so. There are a range of options better than this. But I still think this is better than nothing.

... an actual attempt to get at the facts here....

Without the original protest, there would have been no such attempts. The Army Times is interested because it's a story now.

We'll see where it goes from here. A formal complaint would have been better, I'll agree yet again. This still gets us to the Army looking into it, and to a clear and public demonstration to officers who think this is cute that it is in fact unacceptable.

Thus putting this story roughly in the same category as the "Bakers Burning Gays at the Stake" narrative.

Tex, Tex, Tex you ignorant slut :p

As all enlightened and tolerant people are aware, demanding that a private business bake you a wedding cake is just the sort of Essential Human Right, without which life is pretty much not worth living.

I would be verklempt if a liberal baker in Portland, Oregon refused to bake me a cake with "Barack Obama is a Kenyan" in big, red frosted letters. That's totally a violation of my First Amendment rahts :)

Of course that doesn't stop posts like this one, claiming that two women are responsible for forcing men to walk in uniforms and high heels...

You know, it never occurred to me that the commander in this case might be a woman. I assumed women would understand, from experience, why sexualizing and humiliating soldiers in uniform was not a good way to fight sexual abuse in the military. I'm still operating under the assumption that any pressure to 'do this or else' came from male soldiers, Ace & Co. notwithstanding.